Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
You will probably receive up to half a dozen more letters from DCBL, increasingly shrill and threatening, but you can smile and ignore them.Will do, thanks!
It will not go to court. It can’t go to court in England. Even if they were stupid enough to issue a claim, it would be struck out because of jurisdiction.
If it were a valid claim and it did go to a hearing, the claim would be in the region of £100 + £70 + £35 + £50 = £255.00. If you were to lose the claim, the fake £70 added as a debt recovery fee or damages is usually not allowed.
So, in the very worst case scenario of a real and valid claim (this case would not be so), if the claim was lost, it would cost less than £200 and if it was fully paid within 28 days of judgment, the CCJ is expunged from your credit file.
The actual chargers is £100. The fee for filing the claim is £35 and they are only allowed to claim a fixed £50 for legal fees. The small claims track of the county court does not allow for additional costs to be claimed unless there are exceptional circumstances such as unreasonable behaviour by the unsuccessful party. More often than not, with these bulk litigation cases, it is the claimant that loses and are found to have acted unreasonable, such as not complying with CPR 16.4 and the defendant is usually awarded costs.
So, I repeat my earlier advice, don’t overthink this. It won’t go to a hearing.
This is not a criminal matter. It is a civil contractual dispute.
Even in the absolute worst case scenario, if it went to court and you lost, as long as the judgment amount was paid in full within 28 days, there would be no record of it on your credit file. It would be completely expunged.
You are overthinking this. They have up to 5 years to issue a claim in Scotland (6 years in the England & Wales).
Knowing how intellectually malnourished the people that work for DCB Legal are, I wouldn't put it past them to try and issue a claim for this in the county court. Of course, it won't amount to anything because of jurisdiction.
The most likely outcome is nothing. They will give up and move on to lower hanging fruit on the gullible tree.
Sadly, far too many people who receive these PCNs have zero idea of how to handle them or their rights. You are here now receiving advice. You won't be paying a penny.
Get on with your life. If they are imbecilic enough to issue a claim, we can easily deal with it at the time. No need to cross bridges that aren't there yet.
As a general rule, a keeper cannot be sued in an English court for an alleged contractual debt arising from an incident in Scotland, unless specific conditions are met. Under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, contractual disputes are generally handled in the jurisdiction where the alleged contract was formed or the incident occurred. If the alleged contravention took place in Scotland, the proper jurisdiction is Scottish law, and any court action should be initiated in Scotland.
Although the keeper now resides in England, this does not automatically shift jurisdiction to England for an alleged debt originating in Scotland. The claimant (ECP) would need to establish that an English court has jurisdiction. This is challenging if the alleged breach occurred entirely in Scotland, where keeper liability does not apply.
As the alleged debt arises from a consumer contract (e.g., parking terms and conditions), jurisdiction is based on the location of the contract’s formation or performance. Since the alleged parking event occurred in Scotland, Scottish jurisdiction would apply.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (which allows keeper liability in England and Wales) does not apply in Scotland. If ECP cannot identify the driver (they can't), they cannot hold the keeper liable. This undermines the basis for suing the keeper in any jurisdiction.
Even if ECP wanted to pursue the case in England, the defendant (the keeper) could challenge jurisdiction, arguing that the claim must be heard in Scotland. This would likely result in the case being dismissed.
Pursuing a cross-border claim from Scotland to England would be costly for ECP, particularly given the lack of keeper liability in Scotland. This means that ECP would never attempt to sue in England over a Scottish incident.
If proceedings are initiated, you would file a jurisdictional challenge to have the case dismissed or transferred to Scotland. However, even if this were for a case in England, this bottom-dwelling duo, ECP and DCB Legal, would eventually discontinue as long as the claim is defended.
In the meantime, you can safely ignore DCBL. They are acting as a debt collector and are powerless to do anything. Under no circumstances must you communicate with a debt collector. They are powerless and not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. Ignore.
Should DCB Legal (not DCBL) send you a Letter of Claim (LoC), come back and we will give you a suitable response which would direct them to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
The threat appears to be one of action in the County Court. That will prove a challenge for them, as there is no such thing in Scotland.
There is still no keeper liability in Scotland, so DCBL can be ignored.
In the unlikely event you receive a "Letter of Claim" from DCB Legal come back here.